Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

neither you nor a hunter would have any legitimate claim to criticize me if I were to exercise my subjective preference to go out and start shooting hunters.

Why bother criticizing you when we can put you in jail for the rest of your life?

You can go to prison for hunting foxes in England.  True, there is still no law against hunting in general, but give it maybe 20 more years.  As I said, moral progress can be slow.

Sport hunting exemplifies sadism.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

I disagree. The hunters I know can spend all day tramping around in the forest, never even get a shot,

That’s because they are “bad” hunter.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

and still enjoy the experience. For them, it’s the getting out into the woods that’s enjoyable.

If so, then why don’t they just hike?  Why do they have to go around with rifles and ready to kill someone?

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

It’s no different than fishermen who sit in their boats doing nothing all day, waiting for a fish to take the hook.

Of course it is not different.  Fishing is the same as hunting.  You are just killing different species of animals and using different methods to kill them.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

It’s just absorbing the peace and quiet. People who climb mountains are the same. Why bother going to the top of the mountain? You could just as well wander all around the mountain. But getting to the top creates a sense of purpose even though that purpose is not the ultimate cause of the activity.

Again, if hunters just hiked the woods, I would have nothing against them.  But they murder animals and they enjoy it.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

Yes, I find it disgusting to shoot animals. But I am not so small-minded as to condemn other cultures for their values unless those values cause injury to me.

So it is all about you.  You don’t care if the rights of others are violated, as long as you have your rights.  In that case, I can predict that you don’t support women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights (obviously), children’s rights, or any other individual rights except for white male rights.  Right?

Just consider the scientific and philosophical thought that the Church tied to suppress.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

Right up until the Reformation, all the scientists and all the philosophers were clerics and indeed most people who could read were educated by the Church. The Church was the font of all science and philosophy during that period.

That is because that was the easiest way to get an education.  But any cleric who expressed any views that contradicted the bible was burned at the stakes.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

Thanks for the solid numbers on hunting. They do indeed demonstrate that hunting is declining. Attributing the cause of this decline to moral revulsion of killing animals remains unjustified—but perhaps you can find some data on that.

That is proven by the polls.

How in the world can you compare gays to hunters?!!!

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

I am NOT comparing gays to hunters. I am comparing my emotional reaction to gays to my emotional reaction to hunters.

How can you possibly have the same emotional reaction?

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

neither you nor a hunter would have any legitimate claim to criticize me if I were to exercise my subjective preference to go out and start shooting hunters.

Why bother criticizing you when we can put you in jail for the rest of your life?

You could also put me in jail if I did nothing at all.  The ability to control others via force does not give reason to the matter of whether something is OK or not.  We discussed slavery earlier as an example of something that was not only legal but sanctioned by the law and not OK.  In fact, many people were put in jail who spoke out strongly and acted against slavery.  Did the fact of the law make the actions of the slave owners right?

As much as you dislike the term morality, you are issuing a moral statement when you say that it is not my business to tell hunters that they should not hunt.  Is it also not my business if someone wants to beat their wife for disobedience or throw acid on her face because they are dissatisfied with the size of her dowry?  Is it not your place to get involved if one of your neighbors wants to rob or rape or murder one of your other neighbors?  If you think that it is, then is that only a reflection of your subjective moral preference?  One that is no better than any other?  Even no better then that of the perpetrator?

Also, many of us do not need the threat of being put in jail to prevent us from raping or murdering others.  Some of us just get it without a need to be controlled.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 08:15 AM

Yes, I find it disgusting to shoot animals. But I am not so small-minded as to condemn other cultures for their values unless those values cause injury to me.

If your neighbor harms another one of your neighbors then that does not cause harm to you.  Is it small minded for you, or even society to get involved?  Is a no snitching policy really best?

There is a connection between our discussions in this thread about progress in human society/civilization and our discussion of the notion of basic rights.

There are an overabundance of basic resources on the globe today.  Far more than are needed to feed, protect and sustain the entire human population.  The fact that certain people in the world have tremendous luxuries today, as would have been unimaginable to the Pharaohs, whilst simultaneously other people either barely subsist or die under the most squalid of conditions is a direct example of what happens when the most basic of moral assertions, as are “human rights,” are dismissed as nothing but subjective whims.  To say that politics and law should be the sole determinants in the world and that there is no place for moralizing is nothing more than to make an excuse for regarding only oneself as important.  Indeed, it is itself a flawed moral commndment.  It is to assert that the best way is “everyone for themselves.”

BaIB - 02 November 2008 08:29 AM

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 06:45 AM

zarcus - 08 December 2007 12:36 PM

It’s strange in a way because I keep coming back to this “is-ought” problem when talking about morals, ethics. Ever since I heard Sam Harris say that not only is the is-ought problem a myth but we can apply oughts to “happiness” (contentment etc.) I can’t help but think this issue is more spongy then just making the claim as fact. Looking at the moral argument for vegetarianism as an evolutionary understanding we are faced with an “ought”. I ought not eat meat because I recognize the moral dilemma of killing and eating other animals. So, as human animals we ought not eat meat.

Do you recognize yourself as an animal?Do you recognize that many other animals eat other animals?Do you recognize that zoologically man is an omnivore?(Biologically as well)

Humans (some humans that is) are MORAL animals.  This means that our brains are complex enough to judge what is right and what is wrong.  We have this tool (our brain), therefore, we have an obligation to use it.  Also, we have choices.  Non-human animals do not have choices.  They have to hunt or else they will starve.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 06:45 AM

The fact that some people are put off by the current industrialization of animal sources of food is understandable.It is the result of overpopulation centered around large urban areas.Nonetheless it is secondary to the fact that eating animals is NOT immoral.

You said above that humans are just animals.  If eating animals is not immoral, then it logically follows that eating humans is not immoral.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 06:45 AM

You know,when the christians or buddhists or whatever religion speaks of intelligent design,I often think their best argument could concern food sources.Look at pigs and cows.The hybridization and stocking of these animals is perfect.Look at a pig.It’s a veritable feast of plenty walking around on four legs.Same for the cow.Pigs,cattle and chickens.These animals were slowly domesticated and evolved right along side of man.This was no accident.Eggs,milk,cheese,meat,tallow,hides,glue,medicine.

Do you know the difference between and natural selection and artificial selection?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 06:45 AM

Yes,today the massive,industrialization of these animals is,for some,disgusting.And why wouldn’t it be,what with the negative environmental impact,the lower quality of meats,eggs and milks,the introduction of growth horomones and questionable fodder.The crowded feedlots and the occasional media spotlight on brutality.These could be sound reasons to be a vegetarian.
So eating meat is not immoral.

Eating meat is immoral because it violates non-human animals’ basic right not to be used as a means to an end.  If killing animals is moral, as you say, please provide an argument that killing humans is immoral. After all, we are all animals (as you agreed).

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 06:45 AM

What about overpopulation and the formation of civilization as we know it today?Can this be called immoral?

I personally believe that anyone who has more than 2 children is acting immorally because he/she is degrading the quality of life on this planet for everyone.  And those who have no children are the most virtuous.
The formation of civilization is not immoral.  This is how we humans survive in this world.  Why did you ask that question in the first place?  What makes you think that it could be immoral?

So then,humans are basically “moral"I agree.So why then do you think,if humans are moral,that the vast human population eats meat??
I never said cannibalism was immoral.It crops up when normal meat sources are scarce.It could also be used for rites and ritual.
Yes I know the difference between artificial and natural selection.What is your point in relation to my sentences there?
I won’t provide any argument,everything I stated in my post is basically fact.I don’t think that the progress of civilization is immoral.Just like the progress of civilization included stocking of animals,and hunting of animals for food and hides.As far as animals having rights,feel free to help the animals defend their rights,just as people try and defend their own rights.
I don’t need to provide any arguments.You however must provide an argument supporting why people have been wrong to hunt,capture,breed and stock animals for food,hides,raw materials.

BaIB, you have some hyperbolic opinions:

I personally believe that anyone who has more than 2 children is acting immorally because he/she is degrading the quality of life on this planet for everyone.  And those who have no children are the most virtuous.

So it is all about you.  You don’t care if the rights of others are violated, as long as you have your rights.  In that case, I can predict that you don’t support women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights (obviously), children’s rights, or any other individual rights except for white male rights.  Right?

Your prediction is totally incorrect. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions. I’d also like to point out that your position is no different from that of pro-life people who insist that fertilized ova have a “right to life”. I really shouldn’t be engaging you, because we have already established that our discussions are futile. I’ll try to exercise more discipline in the future.

Erasmusinfinity, you are once again confusing public morality (law) with private morality. I’ve explained this several times so I won’t bother beating my head against a brick wall trying to explain it to you.

Although the vast majority of people are averse to view slaughter,most however do eat meat.Vegetarianism based soley on the idea of morality concerning animal rights,is a behavioral anomoly.

erasmusinfinity - 13 December 2007 08:34 PM

Say, since we’re on the topic, have any of you all seen the film Earthlings?  If you are a meat eater and can stomach watching it, you’ll never eat meat again.

This is quite an old post but I only recently read through it. I did stomach the entirety of “Earthling” today and I remain a meat eater. If food animals are mistreated the logical solution is to end the mistreatment, not to turn vegan. I would in fact kill animals (as humanely as possible) with my own hands if I had no other means of getting meat.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 09:22 AM

Erasmusinfinity, you are once again confusing public morality (law) with private morality. I’ve explained this several times so I won’t bother beating my head against a brick wall trying to explain it to you.

You don’t need to explain it anymore.  I absolutely get it.  You are intent concocting irrational excuses for immoral behavior.

You have invented a two category distinction that you repeatedly use inconsistently, and you are irrationally disregarding the usefulness of a third category of social moralizing that does not fit into either of those two categories.  To suggest in any way that an imposition upon a hunter is inappropriate is to attempt to reason away morality by suggesting that it is immoral to moralize.  This is an obviously absurd.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:16 AM

If food animals are mistreated the logical solution is to end the mistreatment,

Agreed.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:16 AM

not to turn vegan.

Wouldn’t this be the surest and most absolute way to stop the mistreatment?  Accompanied, of course, by a halt in the usage of leather, etc.  FWIW I am not vegan.  I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:16 AM

I would in fact kill animals (as humanely as possible) with my own hands if I had no other means of getting meat.

I would also kill animals with my bare hands if I had no other means of surviving.  I have said before that I would eat my neighbor if I had to.  That sort of desperation is not what we have been talking about in this thread.

erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 10:30 AM

Wouldn’t this be the surest and most absolute way to stop the mistreatment?

Except that I want meat. Reform would work perfectly just as reform as alleviated other social ills. Taking meat off the table just isn’t on the table, far as I am concerned.

erasmusinfinity - 02 November 2008 10:30 AM

I would in fact kill animals (as humanely as possible) with my own hands if I had no other means of getting meat.

I would also kill animals with my bare hands if I had no other means of surviving.  I have said before that I would eat my neighbor if I had to.  That sort of desperation is not what we have been talking about in this thread.

I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival. if I had a warehouse full of tofu and wheat or whatever you folks eat I’d still kill animals and eat them.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

So then,humans are basically “moral"I agree.So why then do you think,if humans are moral,that the vast human population eats meat??

I said humans are moral animals.  Humans are moral agents.  Moral in this context means capable of judging right from wrong.  The opposite is amoral, as opposed to immoral.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I never said cannibalism was immoral.It crops up when normal meat sources are scarce.It could also be used for rites and ritual.

I don’t even know what to say to that.  What century are you from?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

Yes I know the difference between artificial and natural selection.What is your point in relation to my sentences there?

Pigs, cows and other domesticated animals did not evolve, as you said, they were created by us using artificial selection.  They are the way they are because we created them precisely the way we wanted them.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I won’t provide any argument,everything I stated in my post is basically fact.I don’t think that the progress of civilization is immoral.Just like the progress of civilization included stocking of animals,and hunting of animals for food and hides.

And also including slavery, genocide, oppression of women, and child labor.  So should we revive these practices and continue with them?

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

As far as animals having rights,feel free to help the animals defend their rights,just as people try and defend their own rights.

I am working towards non-human animals being granted basic rights.  This has already happened in Span where chimpanzees were granted basic rights.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:21 AM

I don’t need to provide any arguments.You however must provide an argument supporting why people have been wrong to hunt,capture,breed and stock animals for food,hides,raw materials.

I did provide an argument.  Again, it is wrong to kill humans, humans are one of the animals species, therefore, it is wrong to kill other animals.  But since you don’t agree with the first premise, there is no common ground for us to begin with.  And frankly, I am glad I have no common ground with someone who even thinks that killing and eating humans is OK.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 09:22 AM

Your prediction is totally incorrect. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions.

The prediction is based on your statement that if an action does not affect you, you are not concerned about it.

Chris Crawford - 02 November 2008 09:22 AM

  I’d also like to point out that your position is no different from that of pro-life people who insist that fertilized ova have a “right to life”. I really shouldn’t be engaging you, because we have already established that our discussions are futile. I’ll try to exercise more discipline in the future.

That is ridiculous!  A fertilized ova cannot be compared to an animal.  An animal is autonomous and sentient. That cannot be said about a fertilized ova.  I am pro-choice.  I defend the right of a woman to her own body.  All sentient (and autonomous) individuals (that is including non-human animals) should have a right to bodily integrity. My pro-animal rights argument is the same as my pro-choice argument.

VYAZMA - 02 November 2008 09:29 AM

Although the vast majority of people are averse to view slaughter,most however do eat meat.Vegetarianism based soley on the idea of morality concerning animal rights,is a behavioral anomoly.

The vast majority of people used to believe that the Earth is flat.  The vast majority of people used to believe that slavery is ok.  So those who believed otherwise were an anomaly.  So what is your point?

sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

Except that I want meat.

And pedophiles want to have sex with children.  Rapists want to rape. So I guess that’s ok because a want justifies it.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

Reform would work perfectly just as reform as alleviated other social ills. Taking meat off the table just isn’t on the table, far as I am concerned.

Reform would not solve anything.  Animals would still be murdered.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival. if I had a warehouse full of tofu and wheat or whatever you folks eat I’d still kill animals and eat them.

And you would be acting immorally.
If you can justify killing humans, then you can justify killing other animals.

sate - 02 November 2008 10:42 AM

I didn’t say anything about desperation or survival. if I had a warehouse full of tofu and wheat or whatever you folks eat I’d still kill animals and eat them.